+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Nanothermitic Speeches Today on 911! (/thread-3168.html)
Nanothermitic Speeches Today on 911! - Peter Lemkin - 19-02-2010
I just watched the live internet feed of speeches by Griffin, Jones, Gage and a new face I don't remember the name of from a nanothermitic new group called Firefightersfor911truth.org He was great! It is all available [along with other information] as well as their demand to congress for a new investigation, uncontrolled and with full subpoena powers run by a prosecutor - on the ae911truth.org website
Some new information was in the talks. One of the most ironic is that some of the cover-uppers at NIST had actually worked with nanothermite. No wonder they couldn't do a proper job and stopped at the onset of 'collapse'.....just couldn't 'go there' :damnmate: :marchmellow:
Nanothermitic Speeches Today on 911! - David Guyatt - 19-02-2010
Thanks Pete. Peace in our time, mate. :beer:
I am a zillion miles away from being particularly knowledgeable about the scientific aspect of 911 thermite dust.
With that caveat clearly stated, I find to my labouring and miniscule intellect, that this is the most powerful argument thus far indicating an inside job.
Nanothermitic Speeches Today on 911! - Peter Lemkin - 20-02-2010
Great photos and videos and more on the site
Http://www.firefightersfor911truth.org :flute:
Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6
No Comments
20 Dec 2009 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions, Uncategorized
During an investigation, many things must be considered. Aside from the physical evidence, and witness testimony, suspect criminal history also must be analyzed. The investigation must include past history and the Modus Operandi, “M.O.” for short.
N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6 – Extremism” addresses terrorism specifically. It reads:
Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. Subcategories of extremist firesetting are identified as follows.
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers, banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environments. Fires or explosions become a means of creation confusion fear, or anarchy. THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL…
It very clearly states the Terrorist may use explosives along with fire to further their goal.
Obviously, explosives were used in 1993 on this very same complex.
It would seem to be a “no-brainer” that a true investigation would test for the possibility that “the terrorist may (have) use(d) explosives along with fire to further their goal.”
There is no excuse for refusing to test for explosives.
Please help us demand a new independent investigation following national standards by signing our petition.
Thank you.
*
NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions
No Comments
15 Dec 2009 / Controlled Demolition, Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions, Uncategorized
WHY DOES NIST REFUSE TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES?
To this day NIST refuses to test for the possibility of explosives. “Considering” is NOT testing. Private parties have tested, and found evidence of explosives.
So, how does NIST explain their refusal to test for explosives? Here it is:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”
NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.
Ironically, the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”
And for their first statement that no blast sounds were recorded or heard by witnesses. We offer the following:
These are just a few of the over 100 witness accounts of explosions.
Now, let’s be clear. Explosion sounds can be explained away. But, only after a thorough investigation. When there is this much witness testimony, evidence, and explosive use by terrorists on this very same complex, there is no excuse for refusing to test for explosive residue.
Help us demand a new investigation by signing our petition.
*
9.3.6 Spoliation of Evidence
No Comments
25 Aug 2008 / Destruction of Evidence, Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”
It would seem painfully obvious the very engineers and investigators that are tasked to determine the cause of collapse would be “reasonably known parties” and would find it very helpful to “participate in or observe the testing” in order to aid in their investigation.
Since when do we destroy evidence before we identify the cause of collapse? We don’t solve crimes, or get safer buildings by destroying evidence, and then hypothesize the cause. There is nowhere in the NFPA guidelines, or any investigation guidelines that we have found that call for the destruction of evidence, and then the investigation.
We often hear people say it was about the money in the recycled steel. We haven’t been able to find one other example of a mass murder, and engineering catastrophe where the evidence was destroyed prior to determining cause, for the money. Don’t accept that excuse. Willful destruction of evidence before an investigation completion is only done to hinder the investigation or hide the truth!
Glenn Corbett, Professor of Fire Sciences, discusses the destruction of evidence.
*
Quick…Somebody call NIST. We have another “extraordinary event!”
No Comments
23 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
________________________________________________________________________________________________
We believe TOWER 7 is the crux of the entire investigation. There was no official report as to how a 47 story concrete and steel high rise, that was not struck by an airplane, collapsed at near free-fall speed into it’s own footprint. That is until this week (8/21/08) - Almost 7 years later after unrelenting public pressure.
On Thursday, NIST released the following: “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”
“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said.
And, on their questions page:
From NIST website posted 8/21/08:
“Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”
Now, do we have this straight. They investigated it. Although, they self admit they didn’t chemically test for residue. So, they are going off witness testimony, video, photographic, and audio evidence, of which they found none that had blast sounds or indicators. They also used computer models. And, lastly, they admit they did no further investigation for possible explosive charges because….it would have been hard to plant them?!? Did we read that right? So, with that logic, we no longer have to investigate any crime that would have been hard for someone to commit from here on out? Is this what we are going to stand for?
Quick, somebody call NIST! We have another “extraordinary event”…we found some evidence! Dr. Steven Jones already did the chemical analysis for them, and tested it in multiple labs. And, we have found the audio evidence and witness testimony that can clear up any doubts as to whether any blast sounds were heard by anyone. Also, look at the video above and see if it looks at all similar to a controlled demolition. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any evidence, videos, pictures, or history of another high rise structural steel building collapsing due to fire.
So, you have to decide. Are you going to take a goverment agency’s report (one that has pathetically drug it’s feet, self-admittedly refused to test for residue, and ignored obvious “blast sound” evidence) as the final word? As NIST says, are you going to put all these “conspiracy theories to bed?” Or, are you going to take action and demand the real investigation our Brothers deserve!
If you’re still not convinced there’s more to it than we’re being told, then ask yourself: if Tower 7 did come down due to fire, why didn’t Tower 5? Tower 5 was much closer, had devastating structural damage from the Twin Tower collapses, and much more severe fires burning. But, it remained standing. So, did Tower 3,4, and 6. Look below. Do your own size-up. Our lives depend on the ability to guage when a building will collapse - test your skills.
Notice how we have a complete, multiple floor conflagration along with signifcant structural damage.
Tower 3 - Closer to Twin Towers, more crush damage than 7, but still standing.
Tower 3 was closer to Twin Towers than WTC 7, and it had significantly more crush damage. But, building is still standing.
Tower 4 - Again, closer and more crush damage. Obvious significant core damage, but building is still standing.
Tower 4 - Again, closer and more crush damage. Obvious significant core damage, but building is still standing.
Tower 6 - Again, closer and obvious massive core damage, but building is still standing.
Tower 6 - Again, closer than 7, and obvious massive core damage. But, building is still standing.
You decide, are you going to blindly believe what a government investigation team that refuses to test for explosives residue claims? Just because it would have been logistically difficult to place explosive charges, we don’t test for them? Look for yourself. Review the NFPA 921 guidelines-why did they so blatantly destroy evidence and refuse to test for exotic accelerants? Look at the video examples. You decide, does it appear to have every characteristic of a controlled demolition? How about when you compare it to all the other high-rise infernos we have examples of…all of which are still standing today! And, most importantly - don’t our fallen Brothers deserve the Truth?
*
Barry Jennings, Deputy Director, Emergency Services
No Comments
23 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
Barry Jennings was Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside Tower 7 when the second plane had struck tower 2. He very clearly states he heard multiple explosions well before the collapse of Tower 7, and he barely made it out due to these exlosions.
Listen very carefully to his timeline:
Here is his account on ABC moments after the incident - when it is most clear to anybody what they heard. Now, NIST says they have no witness accounts of “explosions”, maybe we can refer them to these videos.
Here’s another video NIST investigators should review.
Again, we are not saying this cannot be explained away. We ARE challenging NIST as to their claim of NO EVIDENCE of a blast event. We don’t solve crimes or building collapses by debating hypotheticals. We solve them by applying the Scientific method, testing for all possible causes, and thoroughly analyzing the structure, debris, dust, witness accounts, testimony, and documents. Again, you have to ask yourself why are they afraid to test for exotic accelerant residue?
From NIST website posted 8/21/08:
“Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.”
Still don’t believe there’s ANY evidence of BLAST SOUND?
How about radio transmissions and testimony from FDNY members themselves.
YOU BE THE JUDGE.
*
Analyze Fuel Source
No Comments
23 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
NFPA 18.15 Analyze Fuel Source. “All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if the epicenter of the explosion is identified as a 6ft (1.8 m) crater of pulverized concrete in the center of the floor, fugitive natural gas can be eliminated as the fuel, and only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered.
Chemical analysis of debris, soot, soil, or air samples can be helpful in identifying the fuel. With explosives or liquid fuels, gas chromatography, mass spectrography, or other chemical tests of properly collected samples may be able to identify their presence.”
Were metal and debris tests done to test for residue of fuels that can cause a 110 story steel structure to turn to dust and collapse at near free fall speed?
Well, according to NIST (the final authority on the cause) there wasn’t enough evidence to test for them. “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.”
Did we miss something? Doesn’t 18.15 ”analyze fuel source” say test for all fuel sources that can cause the type of damage we saw? Doesn’t 19.2.4 “exotic accelerants” say melted steel or concrete is a sign of high temperature accelerants? Doesn’t 18.12.2 “high explosives” say fuel-air mixtures do not produce the type of damage we saw? Didn’t the video and testimonial evidence suggest explosions?
Well, some others did test for them, and here’s what they found.
From 911Research.org we have the following:
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA’s volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA’s report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon. …read entire article.
And, Dr. Steven Jones analyzed dust samples and found the following:
We’re seeing a very disturbing pattern. Every indicator to test for explosives is here. This was one of the largest mass-murders on American Soil. This was the first time in history any high-rise steel and concrete building collapsed due to fire, let alone three. Every possibility should have been thoroughly investigated. However, the evidence was clearly destroyed. The official investigators refuse to thoroughly test for “controlled demolition.”
You have to ask yourself….WHY? What is there to hide?
What’s the saying? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….?!?
*
High Explosives
No Comments
22 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
NFPA 921 “18.12.2 High Exlosives…The effects produced by diffuse phase (i.e., fuel-air) explosions and solid explosives are very different. In a diffuse phase explosion (usually deflagration), structural damage will tend to be uniform and omnidirectional, and there will be relatively widespread evidence of burning, scorching, and blistering. In contrast, the rate of combustion of a solid explosive is extremely fast in comparison to the speed of sound. Therefore, pressure does not equalize through the explosion volume and extremely high pressures are generated near the explosion. At the location of the explosion, there should be evidence of crushing, splintering, and shattering effects produced by the higher pressures. Away from the source of the explosion, there is usually very little evidence of intense burning or scorching, except where hot shrapnel or firebrands have landed on combustible materials.”
18.12.2 is very clear. Fuel-air explosions (i.e.- JET FUEL) will be relatively widespread and there will be evidence of burning, scorching, and blistering. If the lobby truly “blew out” from the jet fuel explosion we would see extensive burning, scorching, and blistering. And, think about it, the elevator shafts do not stop in the lobby, they went below the lobby, so why did this apparent “fireball” pick the lobby to exit? Now, carefully look at this video, and you be the judge.Â
Do you see any signs of burning, scorching, or blistering? On your size-up pay close attention to the plants and the ceiling…is this what you would expect to see after a “jet-fueled fireball” blew out the lobby?
Does this match the damage we would expect to see with solid explosives? (i.e. crushing, splintering, and shattering effects produced by higher pressures).
*
High-Order Damage
No Comments
22 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions, Uncategorized
High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.
High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.
NFPA 921
18.3.2 - “High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”
We see all signs of “high-order damage” in all three building collapses. There is no arguing this. And, it’s very clearly stated “high-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”
Now if we look at NFPA 921 14.3 “Preservation of the Fire Scene and Physical Evidence” we find the following “the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation. Therefore, the evidentiary or interpretative value of various pieces of physical evidence observed at the scene may not be known until, at, or near the end of the fire scene examination, or until the end of the complete investigation. As a result, the entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved.”
It doesn’t get much clearer than this. This is Investigation-101! For, all those debunkers and detractors who say “it’s obvious” why the buildings came down, I beg to differ, and so does the NFPA -”the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.” We are professionals, we are not supposed to jump to conclusions, and we are not supposed to let political and public factors determine what we do and don’t investigate. We definitely are not supposed to destroy the very evidence that will provide the answers. And, when every indicator in “the book” is screaming “high-order” explosive damage, we have a history of prior explosives use by terrorists in those exact buildings, we have over 100 first responders reporting hearing “secondary” explosions, the fact that evidence was destroyed and this wasn’t investigated thoroughly is nothing short of criminal! It’s time to get real loud about this. Our Brothers were murdered. My fellow firefighters, we can’t afford to brush this off to politics or ignore this anymore. Stand up with Firefighters for 911 Truth, demand answers, and justice.
*
Exotic Accelerants
No Comments
21 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Firefighter Articles, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
This is from the 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.
19.2.4 - “Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.
Notice how little volume of flame we have, yet a significant amount of molten material that appears to be metal pouring out of the building.
Notice how little volume of flame we have, yet a significant amount of molten material that appears to be metal pouring out of the building.
In any fire where the rate of fire growth is considered exceedingly rapid, other reasons for this should be considered in addition to the use of an accelerant, exotic or otherwise. These reasons include ventilation, fire suppression tactics, and the type and configuration of the fuels.”
NIST denies the existence of molten metal even though we have video and photographic evidence suggesting otherwise. We also have witness testimony from FDNY firemen themselves. Jet fuel and content fires do not produce the temperatures necessary to produce molten steel - that is why NIST has to deny the very presence of molten metal. This is not small stuff. This is a “smoking gun.” NFPA very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
Now, remember, the investigation is just that…an investigation. We do not need overwhelming undisputable evidence to test for accelerants. It is very routine to test a house fire for accelerants. So, why at the first and only high rise building collapse sites due to fire, was this not done? How do we get safer buildings and solve crimes if we don’t test for the very things that could have led to the collapse?
This is not something to walk away from. We have to stand up together and demand a thorough investigation following the National Standards, and justice.
Here is the video of NIST denying molten metal even though we have several FDNY members, very clearly stating the presence of molten metal.
Remember, you are the Jury…Who are you going to believe?
*
Burning Questions….Need Answers
No Comments
21 Aug 2008 / Evidence, Investigations, NFPA Contradictions
Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering’s editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to “A Call to Action.”
In his January 2002 Editor’s Opinion, “$elling Out the Investigation” (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, “the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.” Manning explained: “Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers …. The lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.”
In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a “full-throttle, fully resourced” investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read “WTC ‘Investigation’? A Call to Action” in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at
Nanothermitic Speeches Today on 911! - Peter Lemkin - 20-02-2010
Technical Articles
• Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
Jim Hoffman
• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
• Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
• Mysteries of the Twin Towers
R. Herbst
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
• Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
• Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
Jonathan Cole P.E.
• WTC 7: A Short Computation
Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
More Technical Articles...
Web Resources
NYCCAN.org
The Journal of 9/11 Studies
9/11 Blogger
WTC7.net
0x1a.com
Patriots Question 9/11
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
C.S.I. 9/11
9/11 Facts and Questions - Akira Doujimaru
Kevin Ryan - U.L. Whistleblower
Visibility 9/11
9-11 Commission Report
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
More Links...